RBS CCA request refused due to CCJ

[DandD]

Why is it on these letters that we are sent, they refer to 'these charges have been processed in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of our agreement with you, in the event that YOU breach the Terms and Conditions we will take the appropriate action'?

 

But WHERE ARE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS?

 

We didn't even know these accounts existed!!!

 

So what about this response....

 

 

Dear Banky People

 

Without the original contract for any of our accounts and relevent paperwork from Retail Credit Services, Drummond House. Please explain how you know that these accounts were being administered in accordance with the banks T&C's?

 

Also, please provide us with a copy of the Banks T&C's which states that you can do the following:

 

1. The Bank can close a Current Account without the customers prior knowledge or consent.

 

2. The Bank can create NEW 'Capital and Interest Loan Accounts' without a customers knowledge or consent.With a made up overdraft. (just press the £ sign and enter random numbers).

 

3.The Bank can provide to it's Solicitor a document which implies that the NEW Loan Accounts are subject to guarantee that was discharged 2 years previously.

 

4. The Bank can provide to it's Solicitor data in connection to an AOE that is totally incorrect and then LIE about it when confronted.

 

5. The Bank, when applying for a CCJ does not have to provide either to the Courts or the Defendent accurate information.

 

6. The Bank does not have to comply with the Insolvency Act 1986. It can add Charges and Interest during the IVA regardless of the LAW.

 

7. The Bank can withdraw money from a customers account that is in credit without their knowledge or consent.

 

8. The Bank can apply 80% interest instead of 8%, call this an error if found out, and refuse to explain why.

 

9. A 'Debt at Transfer' does not have to be correct. It is acceptable to take 'data from an incorrect screen'.

 

10. The Bank can take legal action against the Customer and then deny having any documents about it.

 

11. The Bank can withhold Statements from a customer. Denying them knowledge of the way we are messing with their accounts. We can have their statements sent directly to Head Office in Scotland or we could ask 'Sarah to hold on file'

 

 

What do you think?

 

D & D

 

&

Edited May 27, 2008 by DandD

[car2403]

I'd assume they are implying that your consent/agreement to the original T&C's have been "transferred" to these new accounts.

 

It's a shame they are wrong.

[paulwlton]

I would ask them to provide you with their relevant terms and conditions that relate to your account/accounts.

 

I quote my MP in a letter to Sir Tom - RBSs Chairman.

 

"Is it RBSs normal business practice to create and change accounts, including significantly the terms that attach to them, without informing a customer or seeking their agreement"

[DandD]

I would ask them to provide you with their relevant terms and conditions that relate to your account/accounts.

 

I quote my MP in a letter to Sir Tom - RBSs Chairman.

 

"Is it RBSs normal business practice to create and change accounts, including significantly the terms that attach to them, without informing a customer or seeking their agreement"

 

 

Paul

 

This is very interesting as we didn't even know these new accounts existed. Did your MP get a response?

 

D

[paulwlton]

Paul

 

This is very interesting as we didn't even know these new accounts existed. Did your MP get a response?

 

D

 

Yes the RBS aren't bothered who they mislead.

 

My MP forwarded the bank's latest response last month in which it is admitted that my accounts were set up incorrectly as a "different type of recovery account"

Edited May 27, 2008 by paulwlton

[DandD]

But Paul..

 

You were a 'One Off' and they say they wouldn't litigate anyway.

 

Are we a 'Two Off'?

 

There must be more 'Off's'

 

 

D

[paulwlton]

Does this make sense.

 

 

 

 

 

Thinking back to when I worked in the banks as a Financial Adviser in the early 90's, this 'moving' of debt accounts went on all the time. Although I wasn't involved in day to day banking, I did keep my ear to the ground as to what things went on.

 

I clearly remember a case of a high overdraft on one account, where the account holder was not repaying anything or was not in a position to repay it.

 

The branches were put under pressure to keep dormant overdrafts to a minimum. Branch managers were targetted on their 'net balances' of the branch . A large dormant overdraft would have an effect on the net balance of the branch and would leave the manager open to some awkwad questioning from head office.

 

At the same time, they were targetted on sales of personal loans.

 

So what do you think happened to large dormant overdrafts???

 

It was a case of branch managers killing two birds with the one stone. Net balances increased due to the 'removal' of the overdraft and the lending book increased towards their sales target.

 

All this was done as a 'paper exercise' without the knowledge of the debtor, and no consideration given to the CCA or any repercussions. If the fantasy loan wasn't repaid, then the banks went for judgement, and the poor debtor in those days who didn't know their rights were screwed.

 

The reverse also happened, there were instances where current accounts were opened and put into overdraft, and unauthorised overdrafts were increased if the branch had a good net balance figure - to cover the fact that a loan granted had not been repaid, as the manager would also be questioned about loans with 2 or more consecutive missed repayments. This would make it look like a PL granted by the manager, was continuing to be repaid every month and would not show up on any reports. The overdraft would not be questioned for some time if the branch had a good net balance figure. Again these new accounts were set up without the knowledge of the debtor. I suppose money laundering regulations have made this more difficult now? Or maybe not?

[DandD]

Paul,

 

Is this a quote from someone else?

 

D

[paulwlton]

Paul,

 

Is this a quote from some someone else?

 

D

 

It's a quote from someone in the know.

[debbbbsy]

........:mad:...well this debtor isn't going to be screwed anymore.

[DandD]

That was the second 'D' in the D&D.

 

She can be pretty scarey

 

Big D

Edited May 27, 2008 by DandD

[DandD]

Paul

 

This is serious stuff.

 

This could effect a lot of us!

 

D

[paulwlton]

Paul

 

This is serious stuff.

 

This could effect a lot of us!

 

D

 

I'm afraid so.

[adzya]

my oh my.. I have an account with Halifax which I will now be closing.

 

Subbing with great interest.. Hope you win D&D, I am pursuing them for their utter inability to do ANYTHING correctly.

 

Gives me renewed perseverance to prove what utter lobotomised gibbons they are!

Edited May 28, 2008 by adzya

[DandD]

I'm shocked at the info Paul has given us!

 

If anyone has a similar problem please PM Paul or Me.

 

This will help ALL of us.

 

D

[adzya]

Any more progress to report DandD? Am rooting for you!

[DandD]

adzya.

 

There is so much more going on. Can't get back yet, but we will soon!!

[DandD]

Had a letter from the bank this morning.

 

Apparently, all departments will not be getting back to us directly as they have been told to brief Sir Freds office who are doing an investigation themselves!!

 

Let's wait and see.

[Penfold92]

cool...let's hope so eh?

[adzya]

Wish you all the luck you deserve guys.. hope it all gets resolved before long.

[jody123]

Hi D & D,

 

Gosh - what an awful mess - as if you didn't have enough on your plate when things went t*ts up with the business....

 

Something struck me as odd when I read posts in page 1 and page 3, I have repeated them out of sequence here to see whether anyone else spots a connection or whether I am just being paranoid!!!!....

 

Post 45 - Unexplainable (by the banks) comment on "Diary Event History Log"is the first date, Post 20: Interest of 80% charged throughout 2000 and not spotted until 2001 is the second date....

 

26/01/00: "Validation agreed - WR part funded 57.26%"

06/03/01: "...branch have incorrectly keyed 80% as opposed to 8% when carrying out validation"

 

Sorry guys I do not believe in coincidences, I find it odd that they note in 2000 that validation is agreed and that the "WR" is part funded 57.26%, then throughout 2000 80% interest is charged....come on....they are trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes here..... I would be asking to see the auditors accounts particularly as 57.26% could not be explained away as a simple keying error...and I would be asking, and wracking my brains, as to what a WR could refer to....

 

Jody

[Penfold92]

wishful record???

[jody123]

Maybe its World Record for highest interest Rate. Seriously though I find these two entries very very disturbing...Whole R**** - Whole Rate, Whole Record maybe Are there no former employees, or indeed current ones, that could explain what a WR is?

[Penfold92]

final contribution...Without Reason!!!!

[adzya]

Wanton Recklessness?